United States v. Blink , 363 F. App'x 261 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTIN J. BLINK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (2:08-mj-01053-BO-1)
Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne
M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Martin Blink appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his probation and sentencing him to six months’
imprisonment. Blink originally pled guilty to possession of
marijuana, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.35(b)(2) (2009), and
operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol over .08, in
violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(2) (2009), and was sentenced to
a 24-month term of probation. During the term of probation,
Blink was arrested for, and charged with, assault on a female,
possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana.
Blink’s probation officer petitioned the district court to
revoke his probation. After a hearing, the district court
revoked Blink’s probation and sentenced him to six months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Blink argues that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that he violated his terms of probation.
We affirm.
The district court is authorized to revoke probation
on finding the defendant violated a condition of probation. 18
U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2) (2006). We review such a revocation for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Cates, 402 F.2d 473, 474
(4th Cir. 1968). The district court need only be “reasonably
satisfied” that the terms of release were violated. Id. We
find that there was sufficient evidence, including Blink’s own
admissions, to support the district court’s conclusion that
2
Blink violated his probation by assaulting a female and by
possessing drug paraphernalia and marijuana.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
revoking Blink’s probation and imposing a six-month sentence of
imprisonment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3